I run the Memoir tournament at a convention, and I'm also involved with some online tournaments, so I can give you some suggestions. If you speak French, you can also get some great information on from the French Memoir Federation (FFM), which has a message board here, as well as its own website.

Your choice of tournament format depends on how many players you expect and how much time you have. Most players here prefer 2-game matches for each round. (I assume that each 2-game round will take about 2 hours, including time for the pairings and time to set up the boards.)

There are various ways to do the pairings. I'll sidestep that question for now, but if you want thoughts on that later, feel free to ask.

Scenarios: You'll get the most players if you use scenarios that can be played with just the basic set. No expansions. Put the simpler scenarios toward the beginning of the tournament, and the ones with more special rules toward the end. (If you expect only experienced players, then some expansions are okay.)

If you go onto Memoir Online, you'll see winning percentages for the various scenarios. You can also look up the percentages for any other scenario in the Military Archives / Official Scenarios section of this website. I like to use scenarios where neither side wins more than 65% of the time. I like to avoid most 4-medal scenarios. Also, I like to avoid scenarios where it's too easy for one player to start with a hopeless hand -- for example in Arracourt, if Axis starts with 2-3 Left cards. Choose scenarios that are usually fun to play.

Scoring: Here are a couple of common ways to score. Neither of these is truly better or worse than the other, and these aren't the only valid ways to do it. You can count the number of games won, followed by medals won, followed by figures killed. Or you can just do medals won, followed by figures killed.

If there will be any sort of trophies or prizes, you'll want a method for breaking ties. If the winners just get handshakes and the pride of winning, it's okay to have ties (in my opinion).

Most important rule of all: The objective is for everybody to have a wonderful, fun experience.

I just read your post for a tournament in Lancaster,
that looks great!

Too bad Holland is far far away

To explain my thoughts a little bit more:
Since i've been playing again for a couple of moths now, I got some some people interested in memoir44 (neighbors, colleague's, friends) I got acces to 6 basegames so a 12 player tournament seems the most realistic (also if I count the people who i think are interested) of course more people are welcome

If I was reading correctly you play each scenario twice (with player swithing sides ofcourse) and after that you decide who go's to the next round (???) so every round half the players get eliminated. or do you count for al players the medals and count who got the most???
Sorry if im not specific about this, I got to may ideas to decide what's the best way to decide who go's to the next round.

besides this, are players not playing to many game in a row?? (I won't care, but some of my friend will primarily come for the fun)
the game has to take place from around 13:00 PM untill the end... Time is not a big deal, but players must stay interested ofcourse.

A few people do travel great distances to WBC. Last year's WBC champion flew in from Belgium. The year before that, one of the semi-finalists came from Germans, and another was an Australian (living in the US at the moment).

Because of the nature of WBC, where various tournaments are starting every hour, it makes sense for that tournament to be a single elimination format: The winner of each 2-game match continues to the next round.

For your purposes, you would want to choose a certain number of rounds, and have everybody play in every round. Do the pairings for each round in some fair way. For example, in each round, you could pair people with similar scores against each other. Or you could pair them randomly.

Since the tournament at WBC is a single elimination tournament, players can be be eliminated after just 2 games. That's not much fun. And sometimes it's because you were unlucky enough to draw totally unworkable cards.

So we play the Round 1 scenario on Thursday night in the "Mulligan" round. Anybody who wins that match come at 11:00 the next morning for Round 2.

Anybody who loses in the Mulligan can come at 9:00AM for the regular "Round 1."

Its been a while ( some private stuff made the organisation impossible) but i'm back in organizing a tournament.

I'm looking for a way to determine victory after 2 rounds of play.
Of course there a the basic ones:

1: Winning a scenario gives 2 points. a draw gives 1 and losing 0 points. so after two rounds you can have 4 points max.(in a draw you count killed units)

2: Counting medals. if you win or loose, you count the medals of each round. (in a draw you count killed units)

Today I was thinking of a more complex possibility, and I was wondering if it was ever used:

Make some kind of formula to determine score after each round.
every killed figure count as one. every medal count as 5 every objective count as 7 (numbers are just examples).
This way you could theoretical have the best score, even if you loose 2 times.
It has the advantage that objectives become more importent for the players, to either attack or defend them. Also killing a lot of figure without winning medals get you somewhere.

One of the minor gripes my playing partner and I have is that in most scenarios it isn't necesary to go for the (historic) objectives, just knock the day-lights out of each other, collect the medals and win.

We often make in mandetory that an objective has to be taken to win. Allocating points might be a better way to score a scenario to see who has actually won. Attacker could take the objective, yet lose so many troops in doing so they actually loose, or just get a minor vitory.

Does that mean 2 matches/4 games?
How many people?
Are you playing Online or face-to-face?

Operation Cobra (Western Front) is balanced at 52% after thousands or tens of thousands of games played. As Sam said, the simpler scenarios are better for newbies and this doesn't have any funky rules.

If you insist on best of 4 games, then I'd say play one game against one opponent (on a balanced scenario so side won't matter) draw for side then switch opponent after each game (not match).

The tournament I play in February is a little messed up. Manager wants to have a 4-game qualifying round, where you get a point for each win, not a win for each match. So if you win both sides against one opponent you get 2 points, and if you split against the next, you each get 1. So people with weak opponents are more likely to get 4 points and advance. Even with the qualifying matches, some people in my tournament drop after the first two games.

That could still happen if you have groups of 5 where a newbie loses their 4 games in one group, so everyone there gets an easy win. But at least the wins are split among people instead of going to one or two lucky enough to get this opponent.

The other thing Sam said was people should have fun. If everyone commits to playing 4 games then this could work. You could still set it up so if two people win the first 3 games, they play each other in the 4th.

if you mean after 2 rounds, playing only 2 matches, it could be realy unfair to players getting very bad cardluck or very bad dice luck, since they will never be able to get back from a bad beat. The only system that could work for you here is the Medals scored points system. (Maybe with use off your extras for Objectives taken)
I would shurely aim for a minumum off 3 games here if you want to organise in 1 day or you could use 4 scenarios with only 5 medals for a win, use a strict time scedule (time limit per match) and start your tournement Early or Run late !

Personaly i feel the Swiss rounds system works best for 6 matches (and more).

The most used point systems in swiss rounds are:

1. Tournement for most Medals = at the end off the tournement the player with most medals wins.
To make a diffrence with equal medals, you can use the figures killed or the figures remaining (that are still on the board)

2. Tournement mode for match win:
Total victory = win both games = 4 points
Victory = win 1 game and have most medals off the 2 games
= 3 points
Draw = the players have equal medals at the end off the match = 2 points
Game win = win a game = 1 point

In case the match runs out off time limits, so ends unfinished, both players get 1 point for that game.

This gives a small problem that some people could 'Stall' the game to get a point, so in this case referees should be on the spot to see there is no 'stalling' and if so 'punish' the staller with a defeat.
The best idea to avoid this would be that every player has a timeclock with half off the match time. the one that runs out off time looses.

For equal diffrence in points, use the medals to make up the list
As last you can us figures counts, kills or figs left on the board.

For equal diffrence in points, use the medals to make up the list
As last you can us figures counts, kills or figs left on the board.

* My personal best system is the match win system, since it is uses the basic victory system, winning a match off memoir ! b
The only flaw in this is the time limit, so to be 100 % Stall proof a time-clock should be used !

/=> If you want to use the objective medals as extra points , you could announce that and give every medal in every game a value.
Some objective medals could be more difficult to score then others, so this system could work.
I peronaly would stick with 1 - 2, maximum 3 points.

It sounds like a great idea if you want players to go for the historical objectives more. In some cases it could be profitable to get an objective, even if you would loose 1 or 2 units (= medals for the opponent).

Extra points for objectives are normaly used in a campaign system.

I LOVE your idea sir and as you say this might bring totaly diffrent strategies, gameplay and shurely challenges to the players !

Since the tournament at WBC is a single elimination tournament, players can be be eliminated after just 2 games. That's not much fun. And sometimes it's because you were unlucky enough to draw totally unworkable cards.

So we play the Round 1 scenario on Thursday night in the "Mulligan" round. Anybody who wins that match come at 11:00 the next morning for Round 2.

Anybody who loses in the Mulligan can come at 9:00AM for the regular "Round 1."

I believe the term comes from golf; a Mulligan is a do-over shot.

I like the Mulligan idea, but it has its flaws:
- since players who are not living close-by, are 'obligated' 2 stays overnight (Hotel).
- secondly since elimination could be very quick, people could ask themselfs if it is worth the travel.
- some people will not be able to have a 3 days off work or home.

It might work fine for the WBC, since there is plenty off other gameboard stuff around to see and maybe to play in something else, but for a die-hard--memoir-only-player could turn out into a very big disappointment if eliminated in the first round.

Teh positive extra is you could organise OL games after the mulligan round.

It sounds like a great idea if you want players to go for the historical objectives more. In some cases it could be profitable to get an objective, even if you would loose 1 or 2 units (= medals for the opponent).

Extra points for objectives are normaly used in a campaign system.

I LOVE your idea sir and as you say this might bring totaly diffrent strategies, gameplay and shurely challenges to the players !

this is the basic idea for my theory

I see I was nog very clear in my other post. What i Meant to say was: victory in one round by playing 2 battles.

so after one round you get a winner determined by score. next round you get the highest scores play against each other and so on. After 3 round you get a winner or play a last battle between number one and two score.

problem in my idea is that a swiss round system can be a problem because good player get a better score. (in stead of just points for winning the game)

Giving the objectives a more importent role keeps me thinking though.....

I like the Mulligan idea, but it has its flaws:
- since players who are not living close-by, are 'obligated' 2 stays overnight (Hotel).
- secondly since elimination could be very quick, people could ask themselfs if it is worth the travel.
- some people will not be able to have a 3 days off work or home.

It might work fine for the WBC, since there is plenty off other gameboard stuff around to see and maybe to play in something else, but for a die-hard--memoir-only-player could turn out into a very big disappointment if eliminated in the first round.

Teh positive extra is you could organise OL games after the mulligan round.

A Mulligan round only makes sense with formats such as Single Elimination. Single Elimination tournaments only make sense in the context of a broader gaming convention, such as WBC.

If I were organizing a tournament where everybody was coming specifically to play Memoir, I prefer something along the lines of a a Swiss system with 2-game matches and a sufficient number of rounds for the expected number of attendees -- or else something like what the French Memoir Federation does (though I'm not sure how they do their pairings).

One consequence would be that it would give extra points to players who are lucky enough to draw Behind Enemy Lines (and sometimes Infantry Assault).

That's a downside indeed......
On the other hand, the defender can keep this in mind.

Also, in my opion, the defender has a advance becaus attack a unit is difficult and exposes the attacker.

This method of keeping track of points makes you play de game different, so other tactics may be required to win. getting hold of objectives (or hold them) seems historically more accurate.
offcourse it has its downsides. hopefully the don't weight up to the experience and fun

I'm conducting a tournament using SFTF. We have 2 teams of 5. What's unique is that you are either Axis or Allies. You play the whole tournament from one side. So it will be a team win, not individual. It does save a little time since you play only one side. Because of this, the scenarios should be as even as possible. It's just something different. The object is to have fun and I think the fellows in the tournament are having a good time.

I'm conducting a tournament using SFTF. We have 2 teams of 5. What's unique is that you are either Axis or Allies. You play the whole tournament from one side. So it will be a team win, not individual. It does save a little time since you play only one side. Because of this, the scenarios should be as even as possible. It's just something different. The object is to have fun and I think the fellows in the tournament are having a good time.

In your case i would sue the medal system and ad objectives with diffrent value to trigger people to go for objectives.

In fact you are playing the campaign system !

Normaly you would after this round, reverse sides and see so after 2 campaign rounds, you can compare who did the best with what side.

Your idea would be something I would love to incorporate. Instead of just killing off units, gaining objectives would be the goal. One side has to take the objective(s) before a certain amount of units are destroyed. I think there is a lot more and different strategy in doing it this way. Unfortunately, you can't do that while playing online. The most you can assign an objective is 2 medals. What I've done in some of my upcoming Eastern Front scenarios is assign 2 permanent medals to objectives. That would give the objective much more relevance for both sides. Another way that I've tried to make objectives as goals is to have them in the middle of the board where both sides go for them. My Imphal/Kohima scenario has this set up. Finally, escaping units can be considered objectives. My Kassarine Pass scenario has BOTH sides trying to use exit hexes for medals.

We played two scenario's (and every scnenario as Axis and Allies).
last two scenario's we playd in swiss style, so playing against someone with the same score.
Every medal counted as one point, and a objective counted double(double point were counted after the game was over), so players were pushed towards the objectives. This was very fun, with heavy battles at the town objectives.

After playing the tournament which only had de basegame with some rules out of the terrain pack, we had time to play other scenario's and expansions. Some players never played overlord, so after a quick introduction they played Tigers in the snow. breakthrough and the airrules were also introduced to other players.

We had a great day, with lots of fun and new people we could compete against. On to the next tournament!

That was nearly a year in the making. I'm impressed with your persistence to make it happen. (And I love the fact that you were able to include the Overlord afterward.) Congratulations!

How many players did you get?

Sam

Thanks for your congratulations and indeed! it took me quite some time. It was just never done before, so no playerdatabase and organisation over here in Holland .
Considering this, I was quite proud that 10 people came to this tournament. we kept it simple with 2 scenario's and time to play other expansions. and since quite a few players didn't own the overlord it was fun to introduce it to them.

And since all players were very enthousiast, the next time there will be even more people I think.

last time we had a great time so next week I'm organizing my second memoir'44 Day.
Instead of playing a tournament, we play a "campaign" in teams. So you're either axis, or allied. The team with the most medals wins the day

Problem is I do not exactly know what to choose and do.
My primary goal is still to make people enthusiast about M44 and its expensions and have a good time together.
These are my thoughts so far:

there are about 12 people coming (maybe more) with different experience. There are also people who haven't playd al theaters of war/ expensions. So I was thinking of splitting the campaigns in 2 theaters of war. one in the west (battle for Normandie)and one in the pacific, so everybody gets a challenge and can try something new.
both campaigns play 1 overlord or breakthrough and 2 basic scenarios (normal board)

so far I have no "What if scenario's". so winning or losing doesn't matter, the next scenario will always be the same.
Now my question: What is your experience with teamplay? is 2 theaters of war a good idea or should I stick to one Front?
maybe other suggestions?

I made two teams, each consisting of 6 players. We fought on the pacific and western front, so players with different experience could easily participate. and since there were players who never played before (but became really enthousiast ) and players who played for 9 years this worked out great!

Last picture at the link shows the scenarios. We played Overlord, breakthrough and normal scenario's. as breakthrough needs more time to play, this scenario took 2 round to play.

The average chances to win were around 50% for axis and allies but my side (axis) lost badly.......

nevertheless, we all had e great time and after the campaign we played a Tobruk overlord for people who never played with airrules before.

if you mean after 2 rounds, playing only 2 matches, it could be realy unfair to players getting very bad cardluck or very bad dice luck, since they will never be able to get back from a bad beat. The only system that could work for you here is the Medals scored points system. (Maybe with use off your extras for Objectives taken)
I would shurely aim for a minumum off 3 games here if you want to organise in 1 day or you could use 4 scenarios with only 5 medals for a win, use a strict time scedule (time limit per match) and start your tournement Early or Run late !

Personaly i feel the Swiss rounds system works best for 6 matches (and more).

The most used point systems in swiss rounds are:

1. Tournement for most Medals = at the end off the tournement the player with most medals wins.
To make a diffrence with equal medals, you can use the figures killed or the figures remaining (that are still on the board)

2. Tournement mode for match win:
Total victory = win both games = 4 points
Victory = win 1 game and have most medals off the 2 games
= 3 points
Draw = the players have equal medals at the end off the match = 2 points
Game win = win a game = 1 point

In case the match runs out off time limits, so ends unfinished, both players get 1 point for that game.

This gives a small problem that some people could 'Stall' the game to get a point, so in this case referees should be on the spot to see there is no 'stalling' and if so 'punish' the staller with a defeat.
The best idea to avoid this would be that every player has a timeclock with half off the match time. the one that runs out off time looses.

For equal diffrence in points, use the medals to make up the list
As last you can us figures counts, kills or figs left on the board.

For equal diffrence in points, use the medals to make up the list
As last you can us figures counts, kills or figs left on the board.

* My personal best system is the match win system, since it is uses the basic victory system, winning a match off memoir ! b
The only flaw in this is the time limit, so to be 100 % Stall proof a time-clock should be used !

/=> If you want to use the objective medals as extra points , you could announce that and give every medal in every game a value.
Some objective medals could be more difficult to score then others, so this system could work.
I peronaly would stick with 1 - 2, maximum 3 points.

It sounds like a great idea if you want players to go for the historical objectives more. In some cases it could be profitable to get an objective, even if you would loose 1 or 2 units (= medals for the opponent).

Extra points for objectives are normaly used in a campaign system.

I LOVE your idea sir and as you say this might bring totaly diffrent strategies, gameplay and shurely challenges to the players !

I like this idea for matches, however I was thinking maybe doing what Axis and Allies tournys have been doing for years- BID.

Bid for the side you want and give the other player an infantry unit...rules are: the unit must be placed on their half of the board and at least 3 spaces away from any medal objective (yours or opponents) and at least 3 spaces away from any enemy unit. Only regular infantry are ever allowed as bid compensation.

Example- Pegasus bridge- "I'll be Allies and allow you an extra infantry unit". They can choose to counter bid or accept.

Advantages-

Don't have to play matches
A 4 round tourney will last 4 hrs instead of 8!!! and...
This give the ability to do a single elimination round later
Match different players every round
Equalizes the scenarios and give the players decisions over that.
Points awarded: 2pts- win, 1pt.- draw, 0pts- loss
What do you guys think??? Its much easier and more variable than doing matches...and faster!!!

It sure is good idea to play many scenario's in a shorter time.
But....
Axis and Allies is a more static game though then Memoir'44. Different scenario's ask for different way of playing. Looking the worst side is not always easy for new scenario's, since players don't know them.

Most fun about an tournament is that you can play both sides and still get the feeling you're playing a different game (and hopefully get some revanche against the same player if you lost the previous battle )

More practical: Playing against a stronger opponent can end in a bad bid. So the Scenarios get more unbalanced then intended.
Can a player bid everything? like armor of Artillery ?

Maybe you can organize an team play tournament. I've done that before and it worked great. In that case, you can play more scenario's (because every scenario is played once) but the goal is different, because you play in teams.

You could also combine a normal tournament with team play tournament. You make two teams and make (or pick) any number of scenarios
rule is you play one (or more) scenario less then available. every team divides his players every round . every player chooses which scenario he wants to play, make sure you have enough scenario's. This way teammates that have played the scenario before you can give some advice. It gives a nice touch in team coordination and team conversation.

But do whatever you think works best for you and keep the most important in mind: Have fun and learn something about this wonderful game and WWII

I like this idea for matches, however I was thinking maybe doing what Axis and Allies tournys have been doing for years- BID.

Bid for the side you want and give the other player an infantry unit...rules are: the unit must be placed on their half of the board and at least 3 spaces away from any medal objective (yours or opponents) and at least 3 spaces away from any enemy unit. Only regular infantry are ever allowed as bid compensation.

Example- Pegasus bridge- "I'll be Allies and allow you an extra infantry unit". They can choose to counter bid or accept.

Advantages-

Don't have to play matches
A 4 round tourney will last 4 hrs instead of 8!!! and...
This give the ability to do a single elimination round later
Match different players every round
Equalizes the scenarios and give the players decisions over that.
Points awarded: 2pts- win, 1pt.- draw, 0pts- loss
What do you guys think??? Its much easier and more variable than doing matches...and faster!!!

Well, ultimately its up to you, but I would prefer fairness over speed in a tournament. Thus, I would prefer to play both sides as that ensures equality and is recommended play for the game. I would have doubts about playing in a tournament that used your idea.